Forums

[Anonymous]

Support your facts. Please try not to get really specific such as CSX 9011 and those other stuff would right please do not take this the wrong way. I know it might be hard but please try. Thanks this would be appriciated[;)]

[CMSTPP]

Diesel powered locomotive put out 30% more effort than the steam locomotive.
The diesel locomotive can pull much more than the average steam locomootive. Plus the amount of coal and water the steam locos went through made the railroads realize, when the diesels came out, it would save them some money.
Even though the locomotives hold 5000 gallon gas tanks they are much more effecient. Buy this is what makes the steam engine liked through out the world. They are a very rare sight. But there is one railroad that brought back a bueaty. The Union Pacific brought a huge Mallet back from the dead.

hopefully some of this information helped.

James

[route_rock]

Well UP never retired 844 so bringing back the 3985 was a volunterr group and they donated it to the UP if I recall right.
Steams biggest problem wasnt the water and coal. It was the labor, You need a lot of people to get them old girls going and in shape.
Diesels are just a cheap way out, The new ones are annoying and cant load fast and wont let you apply the independent above 10 mph ( on them new GE's anyway havent run a new EMD yet)
Me I like steam but diesels were and will be king for a bit. Would like to see steam come back ( coal is cheap but Powder River coal doesnt burn that hot) but it will never happen. Have a hard enough time getting people to take a SD-40-2 cause it doesnt have air( should hear them cry when the brand new power is on the back of the consist)so you will never see steam come back unless it has air a conductors desk and no grease!

[coborn35]

James, is not really true? I believe pound for pound, a steam loco has more tractive effort and pulling power than any single diesel.
I am not toally sure though.

[Kevin C. Smith]

"Than any single diesel" is another catch-steam didn't m.u., diesels (and electrics) did. More power needed? Just plug in some more units, like Christmas tree lights, with no increase in crew size or pay. The Challengers and Big Boys were the the steam version of m.u.'ing-two units under one boiler. But you couldn't disconnect them for servicing or for changing traffic so you paid for unneeded power and crew costs (weight on drivers was frequently used to determine engine crew pay rates).

Don't get me wrong-steam vs. diesel comparisons are always going to make the rounds in the "what might have been" department. They are fun and often informative (and point out mistakes made that were made). So, everybody, keep thinkin' and dreamin'!

[David_Telesha]

I'm gonna say niether.

A New Haven electric had more HP, and tractive effort than steamers or diesels. Electrics are PURE POWER.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Straight electrics have the enormous advantage of not having to carry their power supply with them. They also have the disadvantage of being restricted to the means of connecting them to that power supply. Without overhead or third rail to connect it to the power supply, an electric won't pull too much.

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David_Telesha

I'm gonna say niether.

A New Haven electric had more HP, and tractive effort than steamers or diesels. Electrics are PURE POWER.

I agree with you.

The Milwaukee was smart to go to electrification. The box cabs (locomotives to the left in my sig) put out more horse power than four AC4400CW!
They could put out more than 20,000 horse power. But usually never made that high since it wasn't needed. Those locomotives put out about 15000 HP when hauling a train over the mountains. Tractive effort was also help full with the electrics. They had more tractive effort than AC4400CWs But the electrics were more efficient than diesel and steam combined.
[^] All of it is explained in my sig![:p]

James

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Straight electrics have the enormous advantage of not having to carry their power supply with them. They also have the disadvantage of being restricted to the means of connecting them to that power supply. Without overhead or third rail to connect it to the power supply, an electric won't pull too much.

Never heard of an electric with out it's cantarary wire or third rail. So I wouldn't worry about that.

James

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Straight electrics have the enormous advantage of not having to carry their power supply with them. They also have the disadvantage of being restricted to the means of connecting them to that power supply. Without overhead or third rail to connect it to the power supply, an electric won't pull too much.

Never heard of an electric with out it's cantarary wire or third rail. So I wouldn't worry about that.

James

My point exactly. Without the added expense of catenary , third rail and substations to feed power, a straight electric locomotive is useless.

[selector]

Hour-for-hour, steamers ran much longer as a unit than diesels have done for the most part. It wasn't unusual to see 30-year old steam on the rails in 1945, but few similarly aged prime movers reach that age nowadays. Switchers, maybe, but not the big guns.

Apart from that, diesels are soooo much more efficient pound for pound, in both tractive effort and in fuel consumption per ton-mile.

Just to make my position clear, I model steam exclusively because I love those big engines, but they had their time on the rails.

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by coborn35

James, is not really true? I believe pound for pound, a steam loco has more tractive effort and pulling power than any single diesel.
I am not toally sure though.

Well, let's do a quick comparison:

CSX AC4400: 180,000 lbs continious tractive effort from 432,000 lbs engine weight.

Steam Locomotive: Um... Can't seem to find any steam locomotive that could produce 180,000 lbs continious TE at any weight.

I quess James is right: the diesel-electric wins.

[CMSTPP]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

QUOTE: Originally posted by coborn35

James, is not really true? I believe pound for pound, a steam loco has more tractive effort and pulling power than any single diesel.
I am not toally sure though.

Well, let's do a quick comparison:

CSX AC4400: 180,000 lbs continious tractive effort from 432,000 lbs engine weight.

Steam Locomotive: Um... Can't seem to find any steam locomotive that could produce 180,000 lbs continious TE at any weight.

I quess James is right: the diesel-electric wins.

Thank you so much.[;)][:D][:p] Max can't even seem to get that out of his head. He thinks the steam is more powerful.

James

[Lord Atmo]

the newer designs make me long to see steam power again. steamers are easily more nice to look at. it would be quite bizarre though, at least for me, to see an old steamer pulling modern rolling stock. try and picture a 2-8-4 towing intermodal cars. weird...

in terms of diesel, the Geeps and SDs were the best over the Bs, Us, Cs, and ACs of GE any day. at least until you started seeing widenose cabs. it's a shame that that's the best safety feature since they look horrible. but i cant argue against better protection for the engineer. as i saw on CSX-sucks.com, an image of a standard cab unit that crashed into the widenose cab unit. the widenose was almost as good as new while the standard cab was mangled and bent inward. those posts sure do a lot. but arent steamers pretty well-protected too? their cabs were in the back instead of the front like almost all diesels except for the switchers.

i miss the big boys, but i'm quite glad i was able to climb inside the cab of one. the Green Bay railroad Museum has a LOT of steamers on display whose cabs can be entered by the general public. now all they need is an SD45.

but of course the carbody diesels were really nice too and i also miss those. they were of a different generation than me, but they look so nice. and i think the As and Bs still pull many excursion trains out there.

as far as pollution, the ES44DC, ES60DC, SD70ACE, and SD70M-2 pretty much dominate over any steamer. the steamers polluted SO much out of that smokestack. but they will always look better in motion. you can actually see the wheels being spun, unlike the diesels that just... well you have to hear them to know they're starting to move. but their engines sound cool when they power up. but it's hard to tell with GE since the air brake keep powering the engine up for a few moments when the thing is idling (and still polluting). long live EMD!

[Anonymous]

Comparing a ES44DC, SD70ACE etc.etc. with any steamer?
Just think abbout the time lap between the last steamer beeing built and the time id did
need to get advanced diesels like the newest types!.
Could there be a way to build "modern" steamers?.
Probably nobody got enough money to try this.
But this means, nobody can tell whether a modern diesel and a modern
steamer is better, since "time stood still" for steamers.
Means there is is no "modern" steamer around to compare with the newest diesels.
"Lord Atmo" wrote, that he was quite glad to climb inside the cab of a
BIG BOY in Green Bay. Well, I stood also in this cab and wondered
what would safety oriented bureaus (=Goverment) say about the working
conditiones of yesterday in todays world??.
It's a bit like comparing an old car with a new car. Old cars are nice to see
or even to own. However for everyday use you would choose the new car.
Or not???.
Herby from DA